Guild Wars 2

SkiTz.4590:

SafiMoyo.5130:

Hey guys,

This discussion is starting to become non-productive. As a fellow frusterated ranger player, I understand how difficult it can be, but we need to put on our optimistic faces for this thread and work with Allie and the other Anet-ers to reach a shared vision.

Believe me, I understand how all of you feel, but mud-slinging and negativity aren’t going to get this class to where it needs to go.

Allie – it would behoove this CDI to have a little direction right now so that we can move past the burst/class vision discussion. Perhaps paraphrasing some of the points you’ve taken away from this and what suggestions could be in the realm of possibilities? Preferably touching on the big stuff, not our nuances.

Yes this discussion has become un productive , but it’s not the peoples fault here… we are patiently waiting on some form of feedback on what is going through the minds of developers right now about this class… until we recieve some sort of feedback, we can’t move any further

there is more than enough suggestions in this CDI… the players here who have posted have obviously stated what all is wrong with this class (basically everything lol) and what are some possible fixes….

The thing anet has to realize is , almost all of the rangers in this CDI STRONGLY believe bandaid fixes will not help this class AT ALL… we need to see some form of commitment or serious idea from a developer stating their intentions on the future of this class…. other wise, its just going to be constant bickering like this

We have given anet plenty of ideas here, it’s on them now.

I wouldn’t say all is wrong with the ranger, I like playing it a lot! And as far as sPvP goes, from what i have read. It’s a fairly decent profession to play.

But in PvE it can be somewhat frustrating fighting a vet and two adds for 5-7 minutes to ‘whittle’ them down. To then (when you stick around) see a Long Sword/Hammer Warrior bash them to death in under 30sec.

And there is more to GW2 than just sPvP, even if it is the benchmark for ‘balance’. The problem with the ranger mostly seems to be how to improve him in all aspects of the game (not being sPvP) while not improving him to much IN sPvP. Besides the obvious things like the pet and spirit resilience problem.

What i would like the conviction, definition to be.

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Change the definition of the ranger, to better line up with what it needs to be in GW2.

The ranger is an agile profession, that excels at sustainable single target damage, while holding their own in larger encounters. They trust upon the force of nature to support their allies, their pet, and themselves (in that order), while they use the wits and tricks of the seasoned woodman to whittle their opponents down.

Goal of Proposal
To let the development team see that their conviction of the current ranger can easily be changed slightly to stay true to their prior convictions, and the current ‘feel’ of the ranger, while still give room for improvements in areas the ranger needs to improve.

Proposal Functionality
The word ‘agile’ fits the way the ranger stays alive and fights much better than the word ‘skirmish’. The focus of the ranger can be on sustained single target damage, there is nothing wrong with that. BUT the ranger needs to hold his own in larger encounters. The ranger should be able to trust on their support to have their allies (including pets) and themselves to survive. And the woodsman obviously hints at the traps and support skills. The ‘seasoned’ also show that this ranger is capable of adapting and surviving, he is ‘seasoned’…

Associated Risks
Some ranger somewhere may rather read a different description of their ranger…

We need, solutions to the pet problem in Dungeons, WvW and LS.
We need, viable and trustworthy support options in Dungeons, WvW and LS.
We need, good AE options for WvW and LS
We need, decent survivability in WvW.
We need, a development team that understands GW2, that isn’t afraid to challenge their own convictions to better their ‘baby’, so that it is a viable profession in ALL that GW2 has to offer.

When looking at the design philosophy (NOT considering sPvP), and summing up the feedback as I read it sofar, we could somewhat conclude that:
The Ranger is a resilient profession that excels at skirmishing by drawing from nature to support themselves as well as their allies. Alongside their pet, they have some of the best single target and sustained damage that will whittle their opponents down.

- The ranger is not resilient, because both the pet and the spirits are dead in the blink of an eye. And the same goes himself in WvW zergs (though that goes for the thief as well).

- The ranger ‘excels’ as skirmish for as far as ‘skirmish’ means 1v1 or 2v1 fights in sPvP. The moment skirmish includes ‘short’ and ‘violent’ in the definition, the ranger has no burst and thus it doesn’t excel. At this point ’sustained damage is the entire opposite of skirmish.

- ‘Draw upon nature’ well that is debatable, speaking from my own taste, and using ‘Magic tG Green’ as a rough guideline for ‘drawing upon nature’, then it does so way to far and between. Pets and Spirits, well look at the first point. And when looking at various ‘nature’ skills, they are more ‘elementaly’ focussed than they are on trees, plants, pollen, resin or what have you.

- ‘To support themselves’ Yeah that one is true, even with pet harming traits it is fairly egocentric in it’s approach to self support.

- ‘As well as their allies’: apart from the warhorn and healing spring (Well maybe the possibility of the torch with warhorn self combo for some extra might could count as well, and some traits here and there), all the support is tagged onto the all but sturdy and trustworthy ‘pets and spirits’.

- Along with their dead pet, they have 30% less single target damage than any other profession in the game.

- To send their opponents in to a wooden spoon whittling mode, that they will more then likely use to cut the ranger apart when it is done.

Now I didn’t enjoy doing that, although that last one made me smirk a little. But I think it does show how the perception and convictions of the design team are caught up by the reality of GW2 as an open world MMORPG with various game modes. And thus when giving feedback, I think it was justifiable to tare that conviction apart in such a way. Feedback simply isn’t a ‘confirmation bias’ exercise.

Now either they hold on to their convictions and they have their work cut out for them to hold true to them, and which case, more then likely, the ranger will still lack in 1/2 to 3/4th of the game. Or they take a good look at GW2, and identify the needs of a ranger class in this game, and from that draw up a new set of convictions, and have their work cut out for them. In which case i would say that there is a lot that can be salvaged from the ranger as it is. Like I said, the biggest problem may not be the ranger design…

On the whole burst vs sustain, skirmish discussion, and associated nerfs and what not.

I think we need to acknowledge that GW2 is balanced around sPvP. And from what I read on this discussion so far, the performance of the Ranger in sPvP, which largely contain 1v1 2v1 2v2 3v2 fights, the ranger performs fairly ok. The nerfs as I understood them were mainly done to tone down various aspects of the Ranger that could be considered OP in this format. Obviously you can discuss whether balance around this game mode is the right thing to do, but for all intend and purpose, the nerfs (for as far as I read about them) were justifiable for this format (maybe a bit to much but still).

Now, if you were to add ‘burst’ to the ranger as well, the ranger would mostly benefit from this, IN this game mode. It would have all it already has, AND get burst as well. While you can argue that other professions have this too, or benefit from to much burst. We are talking about the ranger here, and from that point of view I think you can justifiably argue that adding burst to the ranger ‘could’ make it too power full again in this format…

This whole ‘thought train’ lead me to ponder about what Anet means when it says skirmish. Because (and somebody in this thread actually took the dictionary to look it up) for most people it means ‘Short violent encounters’. In essence the word skirmish IMPLIES burst! … And due to this I think a lot of people here feel they are hearing ‘politicians’ talk, when Anet uses the words ‘Skirmish’ and ‘Sustainable damage’ in one sentence. BUT!

If Anet means ‘1v1’ or ‘2v1’ encounters as ‘skirmish’ … aka, skirmish is a SMALL encounter. Then all of a sudden you can somewhat see that indeed, from a small encounter view. The ranger may well be where it needs to be, and burst would only increase their strength, where, from what we have seen the ranger has endured nerf after nerf to bring it’s ‘skirmish, as in small encounter’ strength back in line with other professions.

One could say that ‘semantics’ in this case make a world of difference, and it is mainly the inherent flaws of the written word that make for a misunderstanding that seems to be taking a life of it’s own…

Having said all that, and while I understand I could be wrong, I will have to say that the ranger development team needs to realize that sPvP is only 1/4th of the game. And while the nerfs have helped bring the ranger in tune with the sPvP goals, it has hurt the ranger in 3/4th, which is the rest, of the game.

In all honesty, I am more and more starting to think that the Ranger Devteam are making a Ranger for a whole different game then the one we are all playing. While a ‘skirmish’ (small encounters) approach is fine and dandy for sPvP and some parts of solo PvE. It is mostly useless in Dungeon and WvW. When adding ‘short and violent’ to the definition of ‘skirmish’, we can all agree that ‘sustainable damage’ isn’t even in the same ballpark. Now ‘tweaks’ and ‘comparisons to other professions’ aside, from what I read so far the ranger is fine in the ‘Skirmish’ department.

Where it lacks considerably, is the 3/4th that is the rest of GW2. And for this ‘rest’ of the game. The definitions and stance that the developers use aren’t even use full. In fact, they seem to be hurting the Ranger more than doing them good… There is no, and has not, been ANY skirmish (small encounter) in any of the LS story parts we seen so far. All dungeon content is 5 vs X and as such, there is NO skirmish in that either. And just writing down WvW should be more then enough.

And when I read a comment here from jcbroe near the bottom of page 24 , where he argues about ‘holding on to your confictions’ or ‘giving the customer what he wants’. I somewhat feel the urge to pull out my hair. I mean, I don’t like to be harsh to the ppl that made my main character possible, which I enjoy a lot playing. And while ‘we’ analyse the Ranger, and pull it apart, it must be somewhat pain full to see how on each and every ‘bit’ a large dose of salt is placed.

Then again, I think I have to mention that I think the ranger team is having a to strict view on their ranger, they are to anally holding onto their prior convictions. And if that does NOT change, the ranger is unable to move forward. It will remain useless in 3/4th of the game, and while it may excel in 1v1 sPvP skirmish fights, a large amount of ranger players couldn’t care less. So really, maybe the biggest problem with the ranger is the development team, obviously not in their technical capabilities, nor in their original vision, but in their ability to wake up to the reality of what GW2 demands from any profession, thus including the Ranger.

Actual Mechanic Suggestion

Keeping with the ‘pet’ theme for the auras (seeing one could also do something with ‘spirit aura’ or simply ‘one aura’). The amount of pets that can be stowed could be made minimal. The idea is actually quite simple:

1. The stow pet option perma stows the pet. So it never comes out. But the interface stays up.

2. The following commands are now attributed to the F-keys.

• F1 – attack my target, the current pet is summoned out and attacks the target.
• F2 – a ‘pet family’ skill that is in line with the ‘pet family aura’ replaces the pet-skill
• F3 – return to me is a way to take the pet out through an F key, instead of mouse clicking ‘stow pet’. It comes out in the mode set in [X] and might not attack target if not set to do so (aka aggressive) and you are not attacking, or is set to passive.
• F4 – switch pets, but if in ‘aura mode’ it switches out the auras instead.
• X – can stay a select button for passive or aggressive.

3. When stowing a pet-family. The stats associated with the pet are added to the ranger stats. This warrents that the ranger will still pay attention to the pets (s)he slots, and seeing these are ‘pet-family’ stats. The stats could be designed in such a way that they make sense for the pet-family, but also for the ranger himself, in regards to the amount of ‘power’ the ranger needs to gain to compensate for not having a pet.

4. Pet families, examples:
- Birds: F2 – your next 3 attacks cause bleeding
- Canine: F2 – your next attack knockdown opponent
- Feline: F2 – gain a vigor boon for X sec.
- Moa: F2 – allies in range are healed for an X bit.
- Porcine: F2 – scavenge your surroundings
- Spider: F2 – throw a net on target, imob target for X sec.
- Bear: F2 – increase your vitality by X for Y sec.
- Devourer: F2 – your next 3 attacks inflict poison.
- Drake: F2 – ‘drake skin’ increase your toughness by X for Y sec.
- Fish: F2 – dash towards target, stun them for x sec when hit.
- Jellyfish: – stinger spray, spray stings all around you poisoning foes around you

Recharge of these skills share the same with the pet out, so summoning a pet doesn’t give another skill, changing an aura would, or getting out current pet, changing pet that pets skill would be up.

5. Conveying the ‘aura’. To not make this to hard, I would personally say:
- I would suggest giving all the pets a ‘green’ transparent skin, and set them to full passive mode and make them unhittable. Then have them walk along… perhaps a size in between pets and mini’s could make them more distinct yet less noticable.

- you could add a glow to the character. but this may well interfere with armour glows and tbh do we really need more particle effects…

- Lastly, is it really that important to show which aura a ranger is in? I mean, you won’t be able to see what 2nd pet they have anyways, so what does the 1st matter? And the skills are not that overwhelming that you would need warning, and those skills that may be exceptionally good in a meta are always to be expected anyways? So no visual cue would be fine with me too.

Nothing more to add really ?

Ok seeing I do have ideas on how this could work, maybe I should turn this conversation around before it turns into a ‘pet/no-pet’ argument…

1. First off let me start by saying that I personally do not want the pet to be removed. I think the pet should be worked upon and improved for as much as reasonably possible. There should be mechanics to deal with boss fights and AoE, and AI should keep benefitting from improvement in the general AI. I am also a big supporter of giving more control over the pet by changing the [F*] keys, so that the pet listens better and doesn’t F* around… Having said that…

2. I am also a big supporter of giving players a way to ‘perma stow’ their pet. Simply because there are people that do not like the pet aspect of the current ranger, but like everything else about it with a passion. The ‘Archer’ is one of the ‘original trinity’ characters in fantasy (next to the warrior and the wizard) and a lot of the things ‘tagged’ onto it, have nothing to do with the original Archer. It was that, an archer, a huntsman with traps, and some simple ‘moss bandages’ to get around. A bow (lots of different arrows), a knife and basic plant knowledge (sometimes not even that, if it was a tower guard like archer).

It is this ‘archer’ type (well mainly the woodsman type) that I think draws ‘a lot’ of players to the Ranger initially. And you may have noticed by now, the Archer doesn’t have a pet. The ‘beast master’ qualities basically come in part from the Druid (the nature wizard that listens and works with animals, basically the crazy small wizard dude (think his name is ‘blabla the green) from lord of the rings. If you are not into fantasy long enough to know the druid.). And some part of it comes from the ’hunter’ that hunts with dogs, or, in case of the ‘guard archer’ the guard dog.

So yes, the pet, or even a whole pack of animals, is certainly something that can go with the Ranger theme. But! It’s obligatory nature (somewhat combined with performance issues, but for a lot of archers and ranger enthusiasts may not even be the main reason they don’t want a pet) is what is bugging me.

So I think ‘auras’ in a sense, could be a nice way to deal with a stowed pet, give these players something in return (as the pet mechanic takes from the ranger just to exist). And with doing so ‘add’ to the ranger’s theme and the profession as a whole, instead of detract from it. The aura is a choice, and a solution for clear short comings, not a replacement.

Ok more on the actual workings in the next post, else this will get too long and nobody will read it, but I still thought it to be important to share my stance.

I am all for a druidic / beastmaster’y nature magic staff on the ranger.

As far as a melee staff, I think that may be more appropriate for the Thief.

In response to my own post just above here (or the last on page 20).

suggestion
PvX

short explanation
Reduce the amount of skills in a group to 3 instead of 4. so room is freed up for more skill groups.

elaboration
One thing that comes to mind in this respect is (making the best ‘pocket knife’ possible), maybe we don’t need 4 of all skill types. Maybe 3 will be enough, so we can make room for more functionality in more skill groups. 6 x 3 = 18, which would give room for 5 ‘flavour’ skills, and 6×3 skill groups.

Because when ever I make a build, I mostly end up taking 2 skills from one particular group, and 1 skill to ‘buff’ its overall function. And even if you were to want to take 3, well if there are 3 you wont have much choice, but at least you have the choice to take 3. And obviously most categories also offer an elite.

It would be a bold move, that is for sure, and it would ‘free up’ one set of 3 skills for an added ‘group’ and increase the flavour category by +1. It isn’t ‘much’, but it may well be an option to have the ranger do something more than it does now…

Risks
- Complaints that the ranger is to ridged in it’s choices, only offering 3 choices for 3 slots.
- Grief/tears over removing somebodies favourite skill.
- Still not managing to deliver on all the needed functions and thematic skills to please all the ‘nature loving’ enthusiasts that hope to find a main in the ranger profession.

nods @ Ohoni.6057 and will leave it at that, mainly to convey I read and agreed with all he said not far above here.

Tempus.9540:

Thanks Nike for the Madlibs, I’ll take all the fun from this thread I can get.

urgh. It’s not like I’m trying to be a pain here with my stress relief post, but when it hits you how very different the Dev’s perception of what the class currently is, and your own…I think I got Hope Whiplash. I need another cup of tea.

Well this doesn’t just seem to concern the Dev’s, it concerns a lot of other players as well. That is why I think this discussion is filled with somewhat contradictive suggestions and feedback.

I tried to ‘explain’ this a few pages back. Basically the two other ‘original base professions’ being warrior and wizard, have split up into all sorts of other professions that by now can hold their own. The ranger on the other hand (at least in GW2) did not split up, and ‘needs’ to fulfil all the roles it had, and all the left overs it got dealt to it from the other two base professions.

The ranger has to be a:
- Woodsman
- Hunter
- Logger
- Trapper
- Archer
- Pet-tag-team
- Beast master (convey with animals)
- Druid (convey with plants/trees)
- Shaman (somewhat of mix of beast master/druid, but also with tribal magic)
- Nimble agile med armour warrior

And consequently you get opinions from players that all want ‘their’ choice out of the above to at least be in the ranger in some way shape or form where it is a viable way to play GW2. Top on that, that the development team has also made their pick from what they think the ranger should be.

Now I personally think the Ranger can be most (if not all) of the above sub professions rolled into one like an entwined and overgrown old forest of nature inspired profession build. But ‘only’ if the ranger ‘specializes’ with in weapons on a certain thematic role of one of the above. As well as doing the same in the ‘choice’ skills. And by making smart use of the traits, to exclude certain combination from becoming over powered. We might all not get exactly what we want, but if done right we might all get mostly what we want. And in this case ‘all’ includes the dev.team and their current setup of the ranger.

But I do hope that with the result we will all have choices for our kind of play, and a strong nature themed profession. Because lets face it, nature will go anywhere it can, no wall strong enough to not be overgrown, not road paved enough to not be broken up or overgrown. No niche location on earth that isn’t filled with at least one form of life.

The ranger to me has always felt like somewhat of a pocket knife. Well perhaps we should embrace that, and try and create the ‘best’ pocketknife possible, with some of the strongest specialized skills on it, but, like a pocketknife, with features build in that make it either impossible or dangerous to have multiple tools out at the same time.

Ohoni.6057:

They really need to fix the way conditions are applied to “yellow life bar” targets, and also fix how conditions stack before they consider “sustained damage” to be something that can be balanced against burst, but that’s a general game thing that applies to a lot of classes, not just Rangers.

Well this could be ‘somewhat’ easily done by the following mechanics:

stacking in intensity
- When a stack is ‘full’ (so 25 stacks) the stack is considered ‘full’ and no stacks are added to it. It runs the whole duration of it’s intended time for the intended intensity.
- Meanwhile a new stack is started, which starts to run for it’s intended time and intended intensity (given it is full).
so basically it first stacks in intensity, then it stacks in duration.

stacking in duration
- When a stack is ‘full’ (so 25 stacks) the stack is considered ‘full’, and no stacks are added to it. It runs for the whole duration on it’s intended intensity.
- Meanwhile it opens up a new stack, which runs for it’s intended time and intensity, alongside the filled stack.
so basically it first stacks in duration, then it stacks in intensity.

self feedback come to think of it, the continued application of conditions that stack in intensity already make for a stack in duration. So it be better if these would also stack in intensity on a new stack, instead of duration.

Another way to ‘solve’ this, is to have a diminishing effect on the intensity, so stack 1 does full intensity, stack 2 does 75% etkittenil stack 5. Where each stack also adds one stack of some other condition, like vulnerability f/e. Or meekness.

WatchTheShow.7203:

Also Allie, have you seen any pet AI improvements mentioned that you think would be a good idea? Anything to keep this thread going in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

While I am not Allie, I did see Nike.**** propose a decent mechanic that could work to give pets a chance to survive big hits. It basically came down to this:

- pets get a endurance bar, effected by all ranger traits, and same size as ranger.
- when a pet is hit with >20% of HP in one hit, this damage is neglected (so pet doesn’t take damage) and instead the pet takes a hit on endurance.

- it then came with a ‘dodge’ of the pet, which I did not like that much, dodge roling moa, not to sure about that

But the mechanic itself, where there is an endurance bar (existing mechanic) that, for all intend and purpose can be ‘hidden’, that negates large hits for at least 2 hits, as it works like a dodge roll. Could well be an interesting way to increase the ‘toughness’ of the pets in various situations, while still keeping it somewhat ‘fair’ and within the confines of the gaming mechanics. (I added a + to it)

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Give rangers a ‘druidic/beast master staff’

Goal of Proposal
Increase the ranger’s a Nature magic and Beastmaster Theme.

Proposal Functionality
The ranger staff (in my opinion) should be a mix between druidic plant manipulating skills, and beastmaster’y animal ‘calling’ skills. And as such could increase the nature magic and beastmaster theme’s of the ranger, while not directly effecting all of the rangers others functions. If possible the staff should have some what ‘skirmish’ elements in it, but it’s main function would be to enable pet play, trapping, area manipulation and spirits as well as ‘support’. I could have skills like, but not exclusively as proposed:

1. Thorn wave: send forth a cone of thorns (‘skirmish’ due to cone nature)
2. Flock of birds: send out a flock of birds attacking upto 5 foes in target area. Blast finisher on caster location.
3. Root Growth: Rampantly grows root in target area, foe knockdown on wave tick, ally stability on wave tick.
4. Vine Wall: Summons a destructible wall of vines (blocks all ranged attacks by absorbing damage), gives cripple and bleed on passing through it.
5. Beastly Roar: call upon nature to get aid from a pet creature native to the area you call upon it, it will attack target it’s called upon.

Associated Risks
To make room for this weapon, another weapon may well have to make place for it. From my own experience I would say that perhaps the knife is a good candidate. But removing anything from the game might upset those that enjoy it’s functionality. So maybe just adding it might be the best. In which case this suggestion adds the risk of ‘breaking’ the skill amount limit set for the various professions.

Adding a staff to the ranger may well cause an ‘we want another weapon too’ from all other professions.

additional argumentation
The setup of this weapon is fairly defensive and AE oriented, which may ‘break’ the designers wish for ‘skirmish’ on all aspect of the Ranger. Something that I personally do not agree with, seeing the ranger has many more roles to fulfil and Nature loving players to appeal than the ‘skirmish’ fighting crew.

A staff with ‘AE’ and a somewhat ‘Defensive’ skillset might actually be ‘anti skirmish’, but giving a Ranger some Area Control, with the staff and muddy terrain, traps. Could be very useful to combat zerg WvW, the defensive nature could also help somewhat for protecting spirits. Or could help give the ranger a more ‘defensive stance’ while fighting with their pets.

disclaimer
I am sorry if this suggestion was already put forth (over 18 pages now so I hope you will forgive me for not having read them all). Also sorry to those that loath the ‘druid’ / ‘beastmaster’ play style on their beloved ranger. But I think the ranger should have at least one weapon dedicated to this part of the nature magic spectrum, for functionality, theme and roleplay. Surely there is enough choice left for you to fulfil your needs and wants on the ranger

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Give rangers a way to remove boons from foes.

Goal of Proposal
One of the defining ways the GW1 ranger played was the ‘interupt’ functionality. Through interrupting they denied casters and melee skill execution. Now I am somewhat glad that interruption seems to be largely gone, and that without any skill-bars on opponents it is a lot harder to interrupt. BUT.

GW2 offers a way to still ‘deny’ any class the option of at least part of their effectiveness. Mainly by the removal of boons.

Proposal Functionality
Weapon hits or critical hits could remove one ‘tick’ or a whole stack of boons from the foes hit. This could be integrated in the skill or integrated in the trait system.

Barrage: “Removes one stack of a random boon from foes hit by this attack”

Associated Risks
Not to sure there are any. I mean, rangers shared ‘interupts’ with the Mesmer in GW1 why shouldn’t the ranger in GW2 share a bit of ‘boon manipulation’ with the Necro.

Added Benefit
This could actually make for interesting strategies in WvW, with more boon removal it pays off less to ‘boon up’ before fights. Making boon spreading a more viable way to go about your fighting, or if you boon up, it might be wiser to ‘spread out’.

Hmm I am not sure how this would pan out, especially since I am fairly unfamiliar with the Necro WvW-meta. But this could be interesting to broaden the capabilities of the ranger.

Specific Game Mode
PvX – thematic

Proposal Overview
Rename the signets to ‘charms’

Goal of Proposal
To give the Ranger a more ‘nature based’ theme.

Proposal Functionality
Rename the signets to ‘charms’, f/e:

oakbark charm = signet of stone

cleansing charm = signet of renewal

Hunting Charm = signet of the hunt

Wild Charm = signet ot Wild

elaboration when analysing the ranger in comparing it to the ‘green color’ from Magic tG. I noticed how ‘green’ as a lot of artefact and enchantment ‘counters’. Yet there also seem to be numerous green ‘charms’. Charms can also be considered a more ‘tribal’ form of conveying magic. Hence I thought it might be a great way to enforce the ‘nature theme’ of the ranger, by simply changing a name.

The ‘charms’ in Magic tG also have choices associated with them (mostly 3), so having a passive (choice to slot) and a choice to activate seems to go functionally well with the name.

Associated Risks
Depending on the way the #item.name is coded into GW2 this might be a long and elaborate process. On the other hand it might be a quick database change. I do not see any other risks to this change.

Well there might be a slight risk of elaborating on the ‘charm’ idea and adding another functionality to these charms. Perhaps something that gives it a 2nd activation option during it’s ‘recharge’ in exchange for an even longer recharge.

Something like:
Hunting Charm:
passive : 25% movement speed
active : next pet attack more damage (recharge 15 sec)
active : your next attack cripples (optional for 15sec, recharge set to 30 sec)

But this ‘risk’ is entirely optional and is mainly suggestion mode running rampant , but I thought idd throw it in non the less.

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Give the ranger more reliable support by viewing the pet as an ‘ally’, and by doing so go through the skills and traits and consider if it could be reasonable to replace the word ‘pet’ with the word ‘ally’ (in range, nearby, etc options), and obviously with that also the functionality

Goal of Proposal
When analysing the ‘support’ part of the Ranger, which by scrutiny of all the options must be concluded it has a lot of. It also turns out that the systems that give the Ranger it’s support (apart from warhorn / healing spring) are the systems that are also their ‘weaknesses’, mainly defeat able pets and spirits.

By viewing the other ranger skills, and their traits, and by treating the ‘pet’ as an ‘ally’, it might be possible to broaden the support of the ranger, as well as improve the reliability of the ranger support. Simply by replacing the word and functionality ‘pet’ in these skills and ‘traits’ with the word ‘ally’.

Proposal Functionality
Specifically on signet activation, the effect could read ‘allies near’ or ‘in reach’ opposed to ‘you and pet’ or ‘pet’. Giving the ranger more reliable options to offer support to their allies.

But more skills and traits may offer options for this kind of improvement.

Associated Risks
Possibly giving them to much support, especially if other improvements are made to the current support systems (pets, spirits). Hence this suggestion carries the words ‘consider to be reasonable’.

Allie Murdock.8152:

That is exactly my point. We want to make sure we’ve done everything we can to make the pet desirable before we consider any options for those that don’t want to play with the pet as much.

I do not understand why it has to be one or the other … as a player that is fairly neutral about having a pet (I much rather play a true beast master with a pack of pet ‘minions’). But in other cases much rather just play without a pet… I would like both to happen.

I would like you to give players more control over the pet, through the F keys. I would like you to do everything you think is reasonably possible to make the pet function properly. BUT, at the same time I would really like you to take the feedback serious… of all those people that are basically saying, give me an option to get rid of that thing…

I mean, don’t these people deserve as much attention and effort to get ‘their ranger’ playable in GW2 as it is reasonable to ask for those that DO want a pet. Sometimes it is good to be stubborn and hold on to your choices. But sometimes it is better to concede and see that doing both (improve pet, offer non-pet option) is a way better solution to make more people happy.

Because, as I just done 2 posts on the history of fantasy tropes/professions. Your current ranger has a ‘pet-master druid’ main profession feature, with a ‘spirit shaman/druid’ spirit party buff. And both offer the ‘unreliable support part’ of the Ranger profession, one of the ‘per your opening post’ qualities of the ranger. Where the other quality seems to be ‘squirmish fighter’. Which by my analysis is a ‘med armour warrior aspect’.

And it so happens to be that I like the ranger for everything BUT the bows. I am no archer ‘ranger’. But I for one can see how the pet makes the ranger into something they do not want to play as. And from the suggestions I have seen they are more then reasonable towards those that do want a pet. Foremost they want the pet to improve and be reliable, but second ‘if you were to ask their egoistic opinion’ they would rather have it gone. And for all the amount of true egoistic wish of myself to play a true beast-pack-master. I understand why!

Now I am sorry if the direct from the heart language in this post is perceived to be offensive. But it is not meant as such! what I do hope it is, is something to wake up the ‘ranger team’. The 2 most suggested things in this feedback thread are: ‘Improve the pets and our control over them’ and ‘give us a suitable way to not have a pet’. My foremost suggestion would be to take that to heart.

We are all here to improve the ranger and I personally think it is possible to incorporate all the functions that the ranger has to fulfil. Even fairly within the confines of the outlines that the ranger-developers have set for it. But as we ‘hunters, loggers, bowyers, archers, druids, beast-masters, pet lovers, trappers, woodsmen’ for the most part are trying to point out where ‘our choice ranger’ is lacking. We are also trying to work out ways to see eye to eye and come to something that could all give us ‘The Choice of How to Play GW2’, perhaps the ranger team should ‘join in’ on that effort. And with that I do not mean post here, I mean by letting go of some strict set idea for this class. And give the ranger some forest freedom, to become something we can all be proud of and enjoy.

Once again I am sorry if I offend somebody with my direct from the heart formulation of this post, but I do not mean to do so. I hope for this CDI to lead to a better ranger, one that offers more valid choices for all those that hope to find a ‘main’ in the ranger class. And for the most part I already love what the development team have set out for the ranger to be, I mean why else would I be here to give suggestions to improve upon my main character…

Fenrir.6183:

Arghore.8340:

Shadowbane.7109:

A ranger is a druid ,scout, tracker, beastmaster, hunter and so on. Because of this rangers are the most debated class in fantasy RP.

I want to subscribe to this notion. Yesterday evening when pondering about the original fantasy ‘Holy Trinity’, consisting of the Warrior (melee), Huntsman (ranged) and Wizard (magic).

Trinity = Tank, healer, dps.

I expected this comment, but that is the trinity that turned out to become the best working gaming combo for ‘tank and spank’. The ‘healer’ was originally ‘the wizard’, and healing was just an aspect of his magic. Actually if you go further back this ‘wizard’ was actually a ‘Druid’. The hooded old bearded guy with a kittening staff and tons of knowledge on potions and spells, it was a druid from saga and legend.

Hence I mentioned ‘original’ trinity and not ‘gaming’ trinity

dinner time, some of my comments will have to wait until later tonight

I want to comment on the somewhat ‘factoid’ I posted above here, as this is the reason as to why the ranger has been so much debated. All the nimble medium armour warriors, the bowyers, the beast masters, the druids, the trappers, the loggers, and the general woodsmen. They all want a piece of him, and are trying to get the most out of their fantasy aspect as they can, out of this ‘grown together’ natural huntsman…

Now is this a bad thing? I personally think it doesn’t have to be… The nimble warrior part does add melee to the ranger, it fits with the agility it already had. The axes (logger) do add ranged in a way that adds to the ranger that fits (I am personally very fond of this). The ‘druidy’ aspect does enrich the ranger in it’s independence from all the other classes (mainly wizard) to stand on it’s own. And even the beast master fits well with the nature theme that is already going on.

And even though 2 classes like a ‘ranger/nimble warrior’ and ‘beastmaster/druid’, might be a solution, when you start to fill in some details of these classes you soon come to realise you are doing a lot of players injustice, as you draw this class apart and leave those in the middle with nothing to go for…

Now we don’t know what is in the works with specializations as part of ‘vertical/horizontal’ progression. Which could solve some of the issues especially for the bodged together ranger. But until that we should strive to make the most of the ranger as possible, and to work together to get the most, by making CHOICE the way to give all us different ‘rangers’ the things we long for in our class. And quite possible accept certain thematic features from each other, where they hurt the least, and don’t nullify the choices we want to make.

This leads me to a few suggestions that I personally think should incorporated, some which I will post in the individual suggestion format. And some I will just reiterated in the next post. (to keep this somewhat short and confined to a comment on my own post above).

Shadowbane.7109:

A ranger is a druid ,scout, tracker, beastmaster, hunter and so on. Because of this rangers are the most debated class in fantasy RP.

I want to subscribe to this notion. Yesterday evening when pondering about the original fantasy ‘Holy Trinity’, consisting of the Warrior (melee), Huntsman (ranged) and Wizard (magic). I came to the conclusion that both the warrior and the wizard have broken up into various other professions over time. Mainly:
Warrior into:
- armoured tank, a damage absorbing heavy armour class
- berserker, a raging damage dealer.
- glass cannon, a med. armour berserker, later under the influence of Asian fantasy turned into the ‘ninja’/‘shadow assassin’.
- nimble swordsman, a proficient med armour fighter

Wizard into:
- Dark Wizard, aka necro.
- ‘light’ Wizard, healer/protector
- Elementalist, all elemental magic
- ‘druid’, nature entuned magic

Ranger into:
- Nothing, it’s the hunter, and traps have always been a part of him/her.
‘But’, as the other fantasy aspect split up into various other ‘proficiencies’ the ranger absorbed various aspects of the others:
- Beast mastery (from druid)
- Druid, all other nature entuned magic not being beastmastery
- Nimble swordsman (med. armour melee fighter).

So where the other original holy fantasy ‘professions’ have all split up into various ‘sub’ classes that by now can hold their own. The Ranger actually has to do way more than it used to do, and hasn’t split up. (arguably, because in other games you do tend to see druid’s or true beastmasters (aka. not pet classes, but beast masters with a whole pack, aka. some sort of a nature entuned ‘minion master’). But in GW2 it is clear that the ranger ‘needs’ to be all of these, where all the other aspect have become a class of their own (warrior = berserker, gardian = tank/holy warrior, thief = dark glass cannon, elementalist = just that, Mesmer = illusionist (magician part of the original wizard), engineer (modern wizard, through chemistry), necro = dark wizard, ranger = ‘tries to be all that is left and is being shoved onto him’.

Now I do not know if splitting up the class this late can fix this, BUT !! Even though the design team might want it to be the ‘nimble skirmish warrior’. They should acknowledge that it is NOT just that!! … The nimble skirmish warrior is only a small aspect of the warrior class, and concentrating on that may well be harming everything else the Ranger ‘should’ be.

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Add the ‘leaf swirl’ animation currently on the ‘end tonic’ to the ‘summon pet’

Goal of Proposal
Currently the pet just ‘pops into existence’ adding an animation could increase the visual appeal of changing pets into more of a magical skill than just something that pops up out of nowhere.

Proposal Functionality
If you switch a pet out, the ‘leaf swirl’ animation plays just as the pet pops into existence.

Associated Risks
Nothing but some resources use I guess.

Atherakhia.4086:

Another thing that needs to be discussed with this class is what’s wrong with it in WvW? If you ask people to rank the classes from most to least useful the Ranger is always ranked 8th out of 8th. If you listen on a team speak the commander has a role for every class to fill but the Ranger. Why is this?

Every time this question is asked it’s a mix of ‘well the class simply doesn’t DO anything’ to ‘the class soaked up all the terribads from every other class’.

So what’s ANet’s opinion of this? Why do they feel the Ranger is consistently ranked 8th of 8th place in WvW?

I think it’s because other classes do what the ranger can do, but they can do it better… That doesn’t mean though the ranger is useless (in my views), apart from the way to weak pet.

Build:
Longbow, choice+warhorn, 2 or 3 traps (traited for ‘cast on click’), healing spring.
You use the warhorn to get your team around faster and blast for might or w/e. Then on fighting you use barrage and traps, if you want to truly be mean you team up with 4 other rangers and 1 shot called targets with long range and rapid fire.

It’s just that, because there is no monk = ‘which target to call’ there seems to be no prime target to go for. Other professions have speedbuffs, waterfields and blasts (though for skirmish the self-combo’s can be really valuable), which tend to be somewhat better then the one the ranger has. And seeing the chances are high that other professions are around and those score better on their ‘profession niche’ as skills valuable to the whole, the ranger as a ‘master’ of all, comes in last. It like ’when does a pocket knife come in handy, when you are just wearing clothes. if you go by truck you better off taking your toolbox with you… and seeing the nature of WvW is like the truck, the pocket knife is outclassed by all the professional tools instead.

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
In the progression CDI’s I suggested a feature where ‘choice’ skills are added to the profession weapons, on skills #2 and #4 (seeing #1 skills tend to be very specific and often consist of follow-ups, seeing #3 is profession related for thieves, and seeing #5 is often a strong sort of ‘weapon minor-elite’.) Also by limiting choice skills to #2 & #4 means less balance hassle.

In this suggestion I would like to propose certain changes to weapons (in some cases) to accommodate for this optional suggested feature, and some suggestions for choice skills on these weapons. (see details below)

Goal of Proposal
To give the ranger team some suggestions as to how to implement choice skills on weapons if these were to become implemented due to them being suggested in the ‘progression CDI’.

Proposal Functionality

Great Sword:
- Move skill #4 to location #3, weapon defining skill
- Options for #2:

• Devourer stab, lean back and stab your sword with two hands forward like a devourer tail. (aka. attack your foe with the force of a devourer) and poison them
• Drake Swipe, Swing your GS in a wide arc hitting multiple foes around you.

- Options for #4:

• Kick Sword. Stab your sword in the ground and kick it, blasting up sand in an arc in front of you, blinding foes. Hit’s a single foe if in range.
• Wolfs run, Run in and stab your foe, knocks down and gives a stack of might.

sigh I realize now that I wont have enough words to do this … i’ll stick to the changes then

Long bow- move #2 to location #3. weapon defining skill
Shortbow – no changes. (add bleeding volley, entangling shot)
Sword – move #2 to location #3 (add spider strike f/e)
Axe – move #3 to location #2 (add fire axe f/e on #4 axe ‘thumb’, knockback)
dagger – switch #4 & #5 throw at various ‘parts’
torch – ‘blow at torch’ for an arc burn
warhorn – switch #4 & #5 (add blindness to 5 and possible multiple targets) #4 add ‘warning call’ (give protection and stability to allies)

Associated Risks
A lot of work to create these skills, it adds a minor burden on balancing, but it could increase the amount of themes on rangers, as well as viable builds.

Specific Game Mode
PvX, WvW

Proposal Overview
Give players a way around the pet, by using the ‘pet’ mechanics. With this I mean, selecting some sort of ‘aura’ through the pet selection window that removes the pet for the ranger and replaces it with some suitable other bonuses.

This can be done by using “animal auras” or “spirit auras”, see details below.

Goal of Proposal
Giving players a way around the pet mechanic that seems to hinder them in a lot of locations of the game. But not by doing away with the pet entirely, but by giving the ranger a way around the pet through the same mechanics. So that pet lovers and role players can still continue to use them. (also, pets aren’t halve bad in certain other parts of the gameplay)

Proposal Functionality
A ranger can ‘capture’ or ‘attain’ access to ‘auras’ that this player can select through the pet selection window.

These can be ‘animal auras’, one for every current pet family, and give F2 skill effects and added bonuses (f/e stats or random effects on hit, crit or w/e effect) that correspond with the pet family theme.

These can be ‘spirit auras’ one for every current spirit, and give F2 skill effects and added bonuses (f/e stats, or random effects on hit, crit or w/e effect) that correspond with the spirit theme.

Associated Risks
People not using pets at all, and constantly being asked to run auras instead of pets. Mainly in dungeons and WvW. But then again, this option is meant specifically to combat the hindrance the pets give in these areas.

added bonus if the pet auras are chosen as a way to solve this, the Norn rangers would have an added theme feature to add to their builds, mainly by letting the pet family correspond with their animal spirit. …

Due to this I am more in favour of ‘spirit auras’ as these would give all the rangers (interested) an option to build a theme around a certain spirit. You could have mountain rangers with the Mountain spirit aura, the mountain (frost) spirit itself, a frost trap and a main hand axe with a polar bear on the swap. A desert ranger with a desert aura, sword/torch, with desert (sun) spirit, flame trap and hyena’s on the swap. Or a Swamp ranger, or Forest ranger, etc. and so on…

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Change various names, and skill animations to better convey the Ranger theme as being one that ‘draws from nature’. (see details below)

Goal of Proposal
This is largely a suggestion to combat the ‘lack of theme conveyance’. That i think hinders the ‘feel’ of the ranger. In all honesty, when I look at the ranger skills, I hardly get a ‘naturey’ feel (and to top that I even play a Sylvari Ranger). This to me is in part due to the naming of certain skills, that make the ranger ‘feel’ like a ‘mini elementalist’ instead of a ranger.

By simply changing various names, and skill animations to better convey the Ranger theme as being one that ‘draws from nature’ the ranger as a whole can benefit from a stronger theme profile.

Proposal Functionality
The following name changes could already do a lot to combat the ‘mini elementalist’ feel.

Signet of Stone → Signet of Bark

Frost Spirit → Mountain Spirit

Stone Spirit → Marsh/Bog Spirit

Storm Spirit → ‘this one is reasonably ok’

Sun Spirit → Desert Spirit

Water Spirit → ‘this one is reasonably ok’

I would have loved to see these skills reflect certain Tyriagraphical areas in the game, like f/e Shiverpeak Spirit, Maguma Spirit, Crystal Desert Spirit; but unfortunately not all spirits can be appointed to a certain region, unless they get entirely reworked, this offers a nice alternative that takes us ranger slightly away from being a mini-elementalist

Spike trap → Change the icon and animations to ‘wooden spikes’ instead of these metal speartips.

Associated Risks
Some players that dislike a nature’y Ranger might feel alienated from their profession. Though I think this risk is fairly minimal. Most players that actually care for theme instead of functionality would more then likely welcome these changes, and those that play for functionality couldn’t care less, as long as it works as intended.

side note I have limited myself in this suggestion to a minimum, because I think it would be to much to realistically expect if I were to go any further with this suggestion, but if you wonder non the less, you can take a look here: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback:User/Arghore/GW2_Ranger
Some of these suggestions are obviously outdated, but there are various (mainly the spirits as this suggestion seems to focus most on those) that could still be viable.

WoW, this thread is moving fast … I merely read halve the first page, and I’m already 2 pages behind :P … anyways, I wanted to mention this to, well everybody:

Please be aware and cautious about changing a certain mechanic that may be in favour of how you like to play, but might well ‘screw over’ somebody else’s play style.

In this this regard I mainly want to point out that some people suggested making certain stills automatically ‘Point to Cast’, like f/e on traps, instead of making this an option. I personally really DISLIKE! this type of casting, I am a dual axe/2x trapper and my play style is in/out skirmish, having traps to be ‘point to cast’ would totally mess up the one thing I found fun to do with the midline/med-armour ranger class.

Tnx for your understanding, options are great, but don’t suggest to change things to what you think may be optimal, but instead try and see if having the ‘option’ for both through a trait gives all of us more options.

I think support is great, having worked on various manpower customer service jobs, I know pretty well what stuff you have to deal with daily. And it is not the crème of the crop of humanity that passes by every day, unfortunately.

Their response time is great, the amount of respect they are able to uphold is great as well, even for the most stupid mistakes that even I (in hind sight) might well have responded to with a ‘learn to read’, ‘think b4 you act’ were these issues raised on a forum like this. Yet there was non of that (from my experience) just a clear, do this-n-that we will do so-n-so, issue fixed… I also like that even the automated responses are formulated well, with clear and respectful language.

While I personally think that Anet threw out some GW1 babies with the bathwater, the support aspect is something that they clearly improved upon. Because it’s not just the supportdepartment that makes for good support, it’s also the tools that the game gives this department that determines how well they can give support to their customers.

The only time I saw an added value for GM’s was during User-organized big events, mainly to deal with grievers. Other than that, a good support department with the right tools and a great deal of respect is all I think is needed.

As a ranger in zerker armor i noticed both changes:
- Being one shotted, or pretty much 90% HP gone in one hit.
- Once downed the foe coming in for the kill, so fast even that even with a rez pet i get killed. If i don’t bounce up from a rally or get ressed by bystanders.

And i think it is GREAT !! (no sarcasm at all here ) for the following reasons:
- I don’t think mobs should just be wiped up for their loot, it makes for a hardly compelling fight.
- It also makes you consider your moves more, it’s not just rush in do a 1 through 8 and hit [F] for loot.
- It makes it more important to keep rezzing people and thus ‘play together’, at times I have seen whole fields with downed players, a full wipe so to speak. Mainly because players think that ‘downed should use a WP’ is the best option. Well it is not, because it takes more time (then a multiple people rez) and due to this time once people start going down the group gets smaller every time, and thus the fight gets harder.
→ this also means support (mainly healing) can become more important.

Lastly:
- I think it is very positive, because it shows that Anet is definitely actively working on Foe AI (mainly the kill drive), and it also shows they are actively trying to combat ‘mindless’ zerking.

With mindless emphasised, because it does, once you get one shotted a few times you (or at least I) woke up a tad to realize this time the fight is a tad different this is somewhat ‘serious’. And I personally love it, mainly because my brain was finally stimulated to become a bit more actively involved in what I was doing (instead of just ‘run up and hit 1-through-10, hit [F] for loot). Especially once I noticed that some foes actively had it ’in for me’.

One thing I would like to add to this though, I do somewhat agree with Orpheal (only without the negative undertone). There are more ways to go about this, and perhaps some of these systems need a ‘maximum’ to stop becoming ridiculous.

Maybe a CDI on AI, Foe behaviour, damage curves and scaling and rewards. Could lead to more of these kind of fights but in a better balanced way. Because I think this is the way forward for more compelling gameplay, and the fact this is happening shows that Anet is working on all of this, we should encourage them to keep working on this, so it can become more varied, more compelling and better balanced.

Back to Scarlet
- Scarlet refuses to acknowledge the determination of the Dream & Nightmare.
- Set to destroy this even if it means destroying them both.
- They seem to be linked to ‘merely’ the Grove-Tree, as meeting another Tree Sylvari shows they don’t experience the dream.
- Looking beyond the dream, and the nightmare, shows somewhat of an ‘eye’ that some link to Primordus, but could easily be of any other dragon.
- She is (in my views) corrupted by this Dragon, and assumes a new name. But, and here I think lies some ironic plot, it seems she is still twisted about a choice being taken from her. She isn’t free from the dream, nor free from the nightmare, she is now in a sense ‘corrupted’ and with that the actual choice is taken from her.
- There is a internal battle in this character that essentially drives her mad, and seeing she fought so long to be free, she will likely do anything to ‘retake’ her freedom. Even if it means destroying both the Pale Tree, as well as Mordremoth.

- What is she looking for then?
While it could be an item, I am reminded of other things, For those that remember GW1, they know there is an extensive underground network. Of which many were connected with Azuran gates. Some of these places weren’t even connected in any other way then by these gates. Seeing the central transfer chamber is lost, and most connected places have thus also been lost. You would want to make sure the area you are about to ‘transfer’ into, is not caved in.

Why would you want to get in such ‘rooms’? not otherwise connected? Because some may well be filled with items of power that legends are told off. Majesties Rest for example (the resting place for kings, queens and other nobility) had Azuran gates in it. And perhaps even a tunnel from there to LA, or some other underground location, where in GW1 the Scepter of Orr was found.

So what she found in LA, underwater in the ‘old’ LA, is more then likely a ‘pocket of air’ A room of sorts that held from the destructive forces of the flood. More then likely underground rooms of the actual Royal Castle that once stood there. Places that ‘more then likely’ were build by the earliest Humans or even by races before them. Like f/e the tunnel system known as the shards of orr, connecting ArborBay with Gadds encampment.

Seeing (though I may be mistaken) Tequatl is currently residing in ‘Gadds encampment’ meaning there isn’t really a way in there. She may be looking for other ways into this tunnel system (and finding out which of it still survives) to get ‘underneath’ Arborbay, and thus, underneath the pale tree. Perhaps, to attack the dragon there, instead of lurking it out by killing the Pale tree. Which may well be plan B.

Why would she ‘not’ want to kill the Pale Tree itself, well more then likely because she seeks acknowledgement for doing ‘the right’ thing. For showing that her wisdom exceeds that of what the pale tree displays as knowledge. And more then ever, in a sense, that she took action to solve something, instead okittennowledging what is happening and living with it like (if all this speculation holds any truth) the Paletree does.

Can magic even be destroyed?
Now all this adsorbing of magic should make one thing clear. Magic can NOT be destroyed. As it seems it can be divided up differently, or scattered, or even be imbued onto objects. But it can not be destroyed…

This seems to have some implications in regards to us ‘slaying Zaithan’. First off would be, was there anyone around to absorb this magic? If not, it more then likely ‘bled’ into the world, and this would make the next on the thrown ( Tequatl ) the most likely place for this magic to bleed into. It would also ‘in a sense’ explain why ‘we’ can slay this beast on and on. As long as there is flesh and bones to make a new Tequatl, this magic can ‘reform’ itself into it.

Which would mean that the only way to truly stop this dragon, is to absorb it’s power and by doing so ‘become’ the god of death. This may also hold true for all the other dragons. And seeing it may well be the case that each dragon holds multiple ‘aspects’ in itself, it could well be possible that multiple entities absorb a different aspect. Which in turn make it possible to ‘later on’ create different combinations. like Grenth being the god of Death and Ice, two kinds of magics represented by Jormag and Zhaitan.

Magic and the Gods on Tyria, and the dragons

While there has been said a lot about this already. It seems that ‘magic’ on Tyria, even though inspired by Magic. Has other influences as well, and does go beyond the 5 colours of Magic.

If you look at the Gods, and more specifically the case of Kormir, it is clear that Magic is not destroyed, but it can be absorbed. If you dive into the story of all the human gods, you will clearly find similar stories to various of these gods. (personal note: in this case I find the relationship between Grenth and Dhuum to be most compelling. Grenth being the god of ‘Death’ and Ice, still could only ‘imprison’ the actual lord of death. the Doom that is linked to all life, the end of it. And in a sense this is not too weird, because how would you be able to kill death itself. As such Grenth was only able to imprison it and take charge various aspects of this power, and the governance over the realm.)

Now there is an obvious strong relationship between the Dragons and Magic on Tyria. And it should not come as a surprize that the aspects of the gods, would also be aspects of certain dragons, which would in turn be aspects of magic. In this sense it is remarkable f/e that Grenth is considered both the god of Death as well as the God of Ice. Where in GW2 we should more then clearly see that these two are governed by to distinct Dragons Jormag & Zaithan. In a sense you could speculate (retrospectively) if Grenth wasn’t first the God of Ice, and used this power to Defeat Dhuum, to also become the god of Death.

Something similar seems to have happened with Baltazar and Menzies. Only, these slaughtered an entity and both ended up with different aspects of this one particular ‘god’. This god may well have been ‘Abaddon’, who ‘by all means’ gifted ‘ALL’ the magic to the people. So not just any particular kind, but all of it. It is hard to say who’s help Baltazar and Menzies had, when they defeated Abaddon. But seeing he himself was an elementalist, whom there after, only had remained as the god of water and secrets. You could wonder if Grenth did not, by any chance, assurb the power of Ice. Where Baltazar got the power of Fire and War(victory), and Menzies the power of ‘crazy’ of battle.

In a sense, the more I delve into this, the more I see a Group of Heroes, going on a quest to slay some omnipotent ‘godlike’ creature. And when this creature has been slain, each of them assurbs a part of this magic. Or perhaps even, the entity that is defeated offers them these powers in exchange for sparing his life. (ps. When kormir became the goddess of truth and knowledge, where did the ‘god of water’ part go sssshhhhhh )

Why all of this background? because if the dragons are related to some of this magic, we can deduct which sorts of magic there would be, and thus which kinds of dragons there may be.

Jormag – Ice => Grenth
Zaithan – Death => Grenth (& dhuum?)
Bubbles – Water => Abaddon => ???
Kralky – Illusion => Lyssa
Kralky – Air => Dwayna
Primordus – Fire => Balthazar
Primordus – Earth => Melandru
Mordremoth – Nature => Melandru
Mordremoth – Knowledge? => Abaddon => Kormir ( knowledge because now the Paletree seems to collect knowledge through the dream )
??? – WAR? (seems to be an aspect off all dragons) => Baltazar
??? – LIFE ?? => Dwayna
??? – Shadows => Menzies

In this sense it almost seems as though, before the gods actually got these power, quite possibly taken from Abaddon. There were other heroes that came before them, mainly those we know as Abaddon and Dhuum (+ ???).

Well I at first came in this forum section to discuss my fear of Scarlet attacking the Pale Tree instead of LA. Quite possibly as a result with some sort of Dragon influence that is also behind ‘the nightmare’. Only to find that I am not alone on this, And 8 pages of discussion have already preceded me.

As my head is spinning with all sorts of things and avenue’s I will try to label each category, to make this more readable:

Paletree & Mordremoth
If you check the picture just above here, it does seem that besides a dragon, there is also some sort of plant entwined with the dragon. While I agree this is not the reason for the actual Sylvari, from both the opening sequence (starter area) of the Sylvari and the meeting of the other Sylvari. We do know ‘The Dream’ and ‘The nightmare’ are specific to the actual Paletree.

And while some argue that Sylvari can’t be ‘corrupted’ I would say that these thorns that Scarlet grew, aren’t anything ‘but’ corruption. When she was in Omadd’s device she was called upon by the pale tree to not look beyond. Now as a sylvari she may have been able to ‘tab’ into the dream, and see all the lives of all the sylvari, all their obtained knowledge and all their lives. When she looked beyond that she would start to look into the nightmare as well, and even beyond that. To then, look the Dragon into the Eye, the dragon that is corrupting the Dream.

Now the Nightmare Sylvari are (from my point of view) not the actual minions of this dragon. But they are still influenced by it, in the sense that these do not follow the Tablet teachings, and instead have their own agenda (which seems fairly unclear). Though in a sense the Tower event showed that they are very willing to create ‘minions’ of sorts.

And here something ‘twisted’ about Scarlet comes around the corner, something that may also explain her choice for Mechanical creatures as her main army. While she seems (may be) the first actual corrupted Sylvari. She is also fighting against this… It is ironic that her ‘quest’ to be free from the choice between Dream or Nightmare, led her beyond Nightmare. Now as this Dragon is some sort of Plant Dragon, would it not be an ‘aversion’ choice to then go with the mechanical…

So ‘my fear’ is that she may be killing the Pale Tree, knowing that Sylvari will still be born from other trees. But it would stop the hold of the dragon on the Sylvari through the dream/nightmare. Where the dream functions as the eyes and ears, and the nightmare functions as the hands and feet. The Paletree-sylvari in a sense are not ‘corrupted minions’, but still slaves of some sort of symbiosis/parasitic relationship between the Pale Tree and Mordremoth. So ‘what will hurt’ is killing off the mother tree, to ‘free’ the Sylvari from the dream, and to ‘free’ the dragon. Once the pale tree is dead and the dragon is ‘free’, and obviously weakened from being severed from the paletree, she will need this Drill to bore down to where this Dragon is sleeping, at the very roots of the pale tree.

ps. Seeing into the dream, and it’s past and future, would also be why Scarlet seems to know so much about Caith. Although, having worked intensively with the nightmare court, and not being able to do so without clearance from ‘the boss’. She would undoubtedly have talked to ‘Shoalin’ (or what is her name), who would obviously know that Caith would show up at some point, and gave Scarlet some ammunition to ‘mess up her mind’. Both would be a good explanation as to why Scarlet knows so much about her.

i’ll make another post for my next ‘issue’

Yeah, so far the hardest thing in trying to decipher this are the combinations of symbols that ‘when close together’ seem to form another possible symbol. This is best illustrated by looking at the ‘proposed’ symbols on Reddit: http://imgur.com/KzO6RO3

And see how the (1st line 3rd symbol) and (2nd line 4th symbol) make the (2nd line 1st symbol). And there are various other combinations possible too. For example the = and the | symbols can create the C symbols quite easily. So without knowing how to raster these or divide them up, deciphering this (if there even is a translation) would be incredible hard.

A couple of things that strike me:

1. There an actual ‘texture’ pulled from the .dat file on the reddit discussion. Using the actual texture, as opposed to a snapshot of this texture moving in an animation in Scarlets lab, would make trying to translate it a lot easier. http://imgur.com/XJojIcg

2. On this texture the following can be concluded. It is a texture that consists of 2 blocks of 7 lines, which are the same. And 2 lines at the bottom which are the first 2 lines of each block ‘mirrored’.

2a. This means that if there is a text hidden here, it is repeated 2×. And we would only have to point our efforts to a block of 7 lines.

2b. If there is a text here, there would be no reason to ‘mirror’ the first two lines at the bottom. Unless it is a clue of sorts.

3. The lines are evenly spaced horizontally, and there is no way to identify a vertical spacing. So the text is to be read from left to right (or right to left). And not in vertical lines from top to bottom (or bottom to top).

3a. A problem that arises to decipher this text is how to determine how ‘wide’ one character is.

4. Seeing all known Tyrian languages are ciphers themselves, looking for a double cipher isn’t needed. One could take into consideration though that ‘Asurran’ language has the same symbol for C, K & Q . Seeing Scarlet studied a lot with them, it may help taking this into consideration.

- So far only thing that I did was to mirror the entire texture horizontally. And from that it seems a tad more clear as to where spaces ‘may’ lie in the actual text. for some reason the image flipped horizontally seems to make more sense than not. This obviously entirely based upon some ‘feel’ of what makes sense :P … then again, if there is something in this texture, then mirroring the last 2 sentences wouldn’t make any sense unless they were in there as a clue.

- Another thing I notice is that there are several symbols that are a ‘vertical’ mirror of each other. Mainly the T but also the ? on it’s side. Together with all the other symbols that had people suggest a certain ‘block’ cypher. Which is just another way to make a substitution cypher, might well give hints as to how the cypher is constructed.

As there are a lot of ’ ’ and L U that are ‘mirrored’ vertically or horizontally. or ‘on their sides’. Still though, correlation with structure and logic does not mean causality…

As there also appear to be a couple of ‘bigger’ symbols, of which it is unclear if they are a symbol on their own, or consist of ‘merged’ loose symbols. Which basically brings me back to the issue with ‘how wide’ these symbols are..

The summary in post 3 on this page has been ‘shortened’ with the help of Nike. It now has room to include more things, given there are any more to include. So if you think i forgot a certain suggestion or topic please let me know, so i can include them.

Nike.2631:

Pssssst! Just wanted you to know it made me giddy to see someone take a crack at that. If I have any thoughts on what to add, I’ll mail then to you directly.

lol, There is no more room in that post! it reached like 4995characters or so. :P … so best to add things in the general discussion, although you may always send me a PM if you feel like doing so

I ran out of character room for the ‘summary’ in the 2nd post up this page. I hope I did everybody justice and got most if not all viewpoint expressed in this thread, without going into specific details on certain issues (like f/e how to format a post).

Hopefully this will help everybody out in determining where we might need improvements or about things that still need to be mentioned or discussed.

Summary of Discussion – [8 feb 2014]

CDI-planning:
- Should include at least 2 weekends to maximize particiption, best to start on Friday.
- Limit CDI duration, to avoid the discussion running into a mush.
- Topic ‘picking’ is still to be decided upon. Suggestions include:
• ANet picks all topics
• ANet suggests options, the community votes on one to discuss.
• The community brainstorms and perhaps votes, but ANet decides on the topic.
• Alternating ANet Picks and Community Nominations.
- It is suggested to have these votes ‘in game’ or on another site announced in game, so that the whole community and not just the forum one gets to have a say in this.

Processes leading upto the CDI
- The CDI needs to be announced better, maybe even in-game to draw in more people and get a more diverse crowd/feedback.

The CDI-thread itself
- Increase visibility. CDI threads could become a different kind of sticky just below the ruler on the board or have a different color.
- Topic scope. Formulate topics that are more precise, yet broad enough to inspire feedback.
- The CDI thread on the mainboard could be just a brainstorm thread on issues related to the CDI topic, or a main running discussion. The CDI would then have a sub-forum, where ANet is able to split off ideas that spark heavy discussion, so that these singular topic discussions don’t overtake the main discussion and reduce its size.
- A sub-forum should be governed by Anet, they should make the threads, so this doesn’t end up as ‘just another’ forum section.
- CDI topic Primer. Opening post to include a descriptive ‘primer’ establishing the field being discussed.
- Summary placement. The 2nd post could be reserved for more procedural information: a running summary, links to the various related sub-forum topics.

In regards to the posting in the CDI-thread
- Dev responses. ArenaNet members should try to reply more towards the thread as a whole and ask general questions, rather than address players and ideas directly. Avoid a sense of favoritism.
- Use a format for posting suggestions/proposals. Discussion remains free-form.
- Be brief. Keep post size short, and use clear language so that readers can get the points without having to deal with the details.
- Posts that are entirely off topic from the CDI’s scope will be removed from the thread.

In regards to technical solutions
- To combat lengthy posts it is suggested to apply: Word limits. Post limits or flood control. Chris mentions (bit below here) these will not be applied.
- Displayed threads in two places if possible: appropriate forum for topic and CDI specific forum
- Explore software options:
• A more ‘reddit’ like forum section, using branching response structure.
• A Public Tracker (JIRA) function.
- An easier way to generate a link to a specific post would help, esp. when using them to create a table of content, but also in these summaries.
- The Q&A format may be able to be used to keep a certain Dev post displayed on top of each page.

Feedback from past CDIs
- Announce CDI impact. Add some way to clearly see the CDI influencing the game (patch notes, acknowledged in devs posting on the board).

Is there any way this CDI thread can become a ‘sticky’ just below the ruler on the board, maybe even a different color? This would mean that people won’t have to bump the thread to keep it on the main page and it would still stick out as something not being a regular ‘sticky’.

@chris, I am sorry this has gone this far, maybe somewhere I am responsible for it as well, but I can’t seem to find out where. And apparently I can’t seem to be able to fix it either… tnx, that works…

And Videoboy, I am sorry ok! I am not a boggie man honest

I’ll shut up about this now, and let others continue the CDI, some sort of recap of things accomplished by now could help a lot. As that would help us determine where to take the discussion next…

videoboy.4162:

Calling me out again and then sending me a insult as a private message is not keeping things on topic. I had already moved my discussion posts forward.

I mentioned your name to explain to Lilith why I mistook her post coming from you, and I am not ‘calling you out’.

I also send you another lengthy PM explaining how I experienced our clashing, so hopefully we can both learn from it. I hope you will reply to it, so we can keep the personal things personal, and not pollute this thread with it. Hopefully we can come to understand each others’ position better so we can shake hands and move on with a

Lilith Ajit.6173:

Yeah just to clarify I called out “the one person who wanted this thread to go on for two weeks”. All me.

If the thread is gonna go on, try to keep this on topic.

I just looked back and you are right, I just skimmed the previous page and it seems you were quoted, so I sort of picked up that sentence with Videoboys name next to it. I am sorry to drag you into this.

It be nice if we can please get back on topic (which I been trying to do the whole time), now while there was at least one positive constructive result from this bickering, I am quite done with it now … So lets move on and help this thread forward.

Part of this post has been snipped as it did not pertain to the CDI

So then, lets end this one-on-one and conclude one thing in regards to the CDI process:

The CDI is best to start on a Friday

which will give the highest chance to include two weekends into the discussion and thus giving those that (on average, and in general) only have the weekends available to dive into GW2 issues a chance to respond. Setting up the CDI in this manner will also mean that discussions that don’t need a long time to discuss can be closed after 10days which include 2 weekends.

Have a nice evening, I will dive into GW2 for now, as I meant to get a bit of game time in tonight… and there isn’t much time left in the night (for me at least).

This post has been snipped as the content did not have anything contributing to this CDI

While this is all interesting to read, I would much rather know what TS views as ‘end game’ ?

And what endgame is will depend a lot of how you play the game as well, currently my endgame goal is to get a legendary, through just playing the game. At the rate I’m going it will more then likely keep me busy for years to come. :P

videoboy.4162:

@ Arghore

But the thread is about you right? Because, even though the rest of us with lives find the time to post our thoughts, we’re supposed to add an entire week to the discussion, just to appease YOUR schedule. No.

In line with what I just said, I will address this…

Listen Videoboy, while I do see your point in regards to this specific thread, that reached some kind of point where most has already been said (but as you can see by my post and the first post on this page, not everything). The 2 week limit will be crossed with normal discussions on most of the CDI topics anyways, so the ‘two weeks is to long stance’ only applies to discussions with very narrow scopes. Which, in regards to feedback and out of the box thinking are not the best ways of going about these. Aka. a broad scope works much better when you want a broad range of feedback and opinions…

The second thing, and that is not about ‘me’, is that setting a minimum of 2 weeks, will make the whole process much more ‘time’-manageable for ANet and Chris in particular.

The third thing, in regards it not being about ‘me’ is that there are more people then just me that have lives outside GW2 and more specifically outside of the GW2 board. That shouldn’t mean that the CDI process should just ignore these people’s ‘right’ (in a sense) to have their lives taken into account in regards to whether or not they get a chance to even contribute…

So yes, on some level I agree that for this particular CDI discussion the period of 2 weeks as a minimum may well (still) be to long. On the other hand, there are still things ‘up in the air’ so to speak. And really two weeks, is it that much of a problem to wait 6 days. Or even 2 weeks, if you would take into account that the next CDI would start a week after this one has ended. What is two weeks on a lifetime, what is two weeks even on the lifetime of GW2 (assuming of course we all intend our feedback to make it ‘last for ever’).

And if it turns out that these CDI threads only provide sensible feedback and discussion for a period of 9 days. Then I would suggest ‘we’ (yes you and me) to file a request to start every CDI thread on a ‘Friday’, meaning that each CDI can last about 10/11days and still include 2 weekends. Hmm? How about that … because in all honesty, I never said 2 weeks, I asked for 2 weekends, so that I have time to give my feedback, and time to respond to anybody that responded to me (as I think that is the most respectful way of communicating).

If CDI threads start on a Friday and last a minimum of 10days (aka close the 2nd Monday there after). There would be a 4 to 5 day window to select a new topic and start the next CDI on the Friday there after.

edit: And if I miss the first weekend, I can still try and find time to check during the week, (maybe not respond), so that I can think about my feedback and post it the next weekend. Which is basically all I ask for in this regard, and not just for me, enough time for people to post their feedback…

timmyf.1490:

we should discuss here: how do we try to keep the discussion on-topic

This is a collaborate effort where people can simply report a post that is completely off topic. A moderator can decide whether or not this is true.

Another part is the actual individual that, as you so clearly formulate, should have the common sense to see the scope of these discussions, and act accordingly. Aka. not post off topic things, nor respond to off topic things so the thread won’t move even more off topic. Instead, see if you can find ways to put the discussion back on it’s tracks.

timmyf.1490:

we should discuss here: how do we try to keep the discussion respectful

In our current ‘selfy’ and ‘entitled’ age this will be a kittene. But in a sense the same things apply. Report disrespectful posts, and keep the scope of this discussion into consideration, and act accordingly.

timmyf.1490:

we should discuss here: how do we try to keep the discussion manageable?

By using the tools available through the board (aka. the report button), instead of responding back in a disrespectful manner, dragging the thread even further down the drain.

This in the end comes down to each and everyone’s individual stance, the thread can only be manageable if people themselves act in a way that it doesn’t need to be managed. Suck up your emotions, hit a door, walk away outside and take a deep breath, meditate for a moment, there are many ways to regain reason over emotion… And even emotions can be formulated in a more respectful way.

What also helps is putting the goal of the thread and the process above your personal goal and simply accept that you can’t always have things your way. And that that in itself is not a reason to throw a fit or get all worked up. Not saying that you can’t respectfully mention that you don’t agree with what is being concluded of course… If we would all agree there wouldn’t be any reason to discuss anything.

@Symph and Aye
Ok after symph’s elaboration i somewhat better understand what may be the case here. Now, hopefully you will understand this is not my job, and I just post my thoughts here while I type, and I do try to keep my thoughts as coherent and well structured as possible. Maybe I could have done a better job at it, I will at least keep this in mind for future posts.

@Videoboy and some others,
I was the one asking to keep CDI threads open for a period that at least includes 2 weekends. This because many of us may well have jobs, family, and other RL issues to deal with during the week. And also, setting a strict minimum timeline for the CDI’s will also give Anet an easier way to plan CDI input into their regular schedule.

Now I understand that this threads topic has been so narrow of scope, that at some point most people said what they had to say. Thing is though, this thread is not about just you. If you have nothing to contribute anymore, then don’t, asking for a thread to be closed while others are not in the opportunity to even catch up and have their say, well that’s by all means just rude. And in all honesty, I am having a hard time staying all nice and considerate.

If you actually wanted to contribute to the thread, and do something useful, you could have made a summary. Check where people agree, and where they disagree, so the thread can stay on topic, or if everything is agreed upon, it can end with a nice summary for all to conclude that all has been said and done.

Then there is nothing else to say, and the thread can just stay as it is. I have already suggested making the CDI thread a special kind of sticky, so that I doesn’t have to get bumped anymore. So that would solve that problem as well.

Back on topic:
From what I read the most disagreement is about having the community vote on a topic to discuss. Where some portray their most fear full outcome of topic they don’t like at all, as the most definite outcome of any system that lets the community set a topic. (the so called ‘strawman’)

I personally think that anything that is called ‘collaborative’ should at least have a two way interaction. A back and forth setting of the discussion CDI topic would be of the most collaborative nature, in my views. And even if it would be to decide that this is not the way going forward, it doesn’t hurt the community nor Anet to find out which topics the community would like to discuss (aka a brainstorm), and which of their own suggestions for topics would rank the highest. If anything it would give ANet feedback on what the community finds the most important about the game, or would like to talk about. And they could match this with their own topics and use both in their decision on ‘the next’ topic…

Another thing that bugs me in this respect, is the attitude that topics that the community would like to talk about are not to be respected, that they should not be talked about, or that it may be a topic that ‘whom ever is against a community input on this matter’ doesn’t like to talk about.

There is no way of guaranteeing that there will be things in life that you rather not do, as a matter a fact, life is full of those things. So why should this CDI be any different, at least you will have a choice to contribute, have your say (in a respectful manner) and give others the right to their say. The most enjoyable part of the CDI process, in this respect, will be that once the topic is over the topic will more than likely NOT see it’s way back on that list again. There is also No guarantee that ANY opinion of the community will see the light of day in the game, as ANet has made clear on several occasions.

So even ‘if’ you are not pleasantly surprized by the interests of the community, the topic will be discussed in a CDI, which you can just ignore, and the next CDI and many there after will not discuss said topic again…

Aye.8392:

Arghore SNIP

Your posts definitely show the need for having a format. I would have a much better chance of finding your good ideas if your posts were concise, or if there were a bulleted list or a summary.

Funny that you quote a post of mine that was actually ‘void of any’ suggestion in regards to the topic at hand. It was a response to the discussion going on at the time.

My actual suggestions are one page back, they cover 4 posts and are interrupted by various other people posting their criticism. Unfortunately I am a very detailed writer that tends to have a nuanced opinion, and likes to use examples to clarify myself so more people can understand why or how I mean something. This is largely due to years of internet usage, and being confronted with the limitations of the written word. Being very specific and elaborate reduces the chance of people misunderstanding you.

If you check these posts you will see I use several ways to ‘bullit’ the suggestions I make. By bolding, by numbers, by – , or by a certain number of ! . I also tend to use dividers to separate different topic within one post from another

So that I do not have to make a new post and flood the board with stuff that could also be said in one post and a divider…

So, I am not sure why you quote the one ‘void of suggestion’ post I made, and request a structured approach to my suggestions, where, if you would have read my contributions were full of ways to have people skim the long reads… /shrug

No i don’t agree with that point of view. In a game that has no expansions or subscription and thus has to have a cash-shop. You add things to the game that add value to the game, and have value to the players. And offer ways to pay ‘you’ back for it.

That way every release becomes a mini-expansion. A mini expansion that you can choose to pay for to get even more out of it.

Now obviously you are of the opinion that you should just pay for everything up front, without the ‘choice to pay’. And that all features and items should thus be a part of that update. And honestly, there is no way convince you otherwise, the systems are what they are.

But I think that as long as the updates focus on added value to the game, and offering ‘more value’ in the cash-shop, it being a way ‘in essence’ to pay and reward the manufacturer for the time put in, if you believe the result was worth the time, and your money. That is better than to have to pay up front and to get everything, regardless of whether you think it was worth it.

And my examples were by no means ways to make things un-accessible, or not giving people what they want or turning it into a big grind. It uses the simple mechanic of value for money, and in it there is a bit of ‘free stuff’ (all earned through the content btw) and a part where you pay (for added bonuses that in essence pay for the whole thing).

But lets make it more ‘concrete’ by getting a RL example. Lets take a butcher, and assume this butcher comes highly recommended by the local advertisement. This butcher has 3 ways to buy meat. From a magical meat stock that needs only to be butchered once every ‘time’ but then the meat mysteriously doubles at every sale.

1. The subscription model; each two weeks the butcher supplies you with various kinds of meat with herbs and sauce, and you are free to eat what ever you like from it. Or discard what you don’t like, but that may mean you run out of meat b4 the 2 weeks are over.

2. The expansion model; each month the butcher comes at your door, and you are free to buy a batch of meat with herbs and sauce from him. You are free to eat which ever meat you like from it, or ignore others, but seeing he only comes once a month and the supply of meat will last you 2 weeks at most. So you have to plan yourself when to eat what.

3. The cash-shop model; each week the butcher comes at your door, and hands you a slice of sausage, and a supply of meat for 2 days (regardless). Then you are free to pay him for a bit more meat, so you can eat meat a bit longer, or maybe he gives you the meat intended for the whole week and tries to sell you the herbs and sauce to go with it.

I think i got these right, even though i think the cash-shop model in gaming is more like a 5 days of meat and a choice to pay for the 2 remaining ones and or the herbs and sauce. And he throws in that slice sausage for the kids ‘if you have any’. But i may be wrong, do please correct me, these are for all intend and purpose my views…

So now, which model for this butcher gives the most incentive to sell the best meat?
i will wait for you to approve of these RL examples, before giving my own answer (also because i now see it’s way past bedtime for me)

I mean, I am smart enough to understand how business works, I do not oppose to a value for money exchange where there is added value that turns into profit on the person selling the item. But there is none! And after the whole Ascended debate, where it should have been more than clear that ‘this’ kind of vertical progession (aka. a tread mill) is unacceptable to the community, and we excepted this in all goodwill as an honest mistake that would scrape a lot of work for no reason as long as it is clear this is NOT the way to move forward in the future. And THEN you try and do the same thing in the shop?! …

As my dad tends to say, you can walk over me ‘one’ time, but there is no walking back and forth. As i said, i have a lot of goodwill for all the mistakes that come up moving gaming forward, i have a lot of trust in ANet as far as capabilities go. But i am somewhat starting to doubt if i can believe anything they say or promise and their capability of learning from their mistakes.

I excuse myself if this is to emotionally charged, but it’s the honest way of how i feel, with some of the anger left out for obvious reasons